Hi Feng, Thanks a lot for your suggestion!
I agree that lazy loading and pluggable storage can be treated as two relatively independent pieces of functionality. Splitting them into separate FLIPs makes sense and could improve clarity and reviewability. Based on this, I’m planning to: - Extract *lazy loading* as one FLIP, focusing on on-demand archive loading and access patterns - Extract *pluggable storage* as another FLIP, focusing on the storage abstraction and backend implementations (e.g., RocksDB) I will reorganize the current proposal accordingly and share the updated versions soon. Thanks again for the helpful feedback! Best, Zihao Feng Jin <[email protected]> 于2026年4月14日周二 15:08写道： > Hi Zihao, > > Thanks for initiating this FLIP. I think this proposal could be very > helpful for improving the performance and overall user experience of > accessing archived jobs in Flink. > > From the current proposal, lazy loading and a pluggable local storage > backend seem like two relatively independent pieces of functionality. Would > it make sense to split them into two separate FLIPs? > > > Best, > Feng > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 8:02 PM zihao chen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I’d like to start a discussion on *FLIP-XXX: Enhancing HistoryServer with > > Lazy Loading and Pluggable Storage*. > > > > This FLIP proposes improving the HistoryServer to address *slow > > startup*, *delayed > > job visibility*, and *excessive small files* when handling large numbers > of > > archived jobs. > > > > The proposal introduces: > > > > - *Lazy loading mode* for on-demand job archive fetching > > - Optional *RocksDB-based storage* to reduce small files > > > > Compatibility: Full backward compatibility (EAGER + FILE as default) > > > > The detailed designs are described in the FLIP document: > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQn-HQSIdhio3ImeOrbS9VfB6JqRTrRV4ZEZDTf3K2o/edit?usp=sharing > > > > Looking forward to your feedback. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Zihao Chen > > >
